Here in the United States, Monday, October 8, was a holiday. Even though it was one day ahead of the actual anniversary I played out the “Savannah – 9 October 1779” scenario from the French & More!expansion. This is a somewhat brutal battle where the French under d’Estaing and Americans under Benjamin Lincoln throw themselves against a British line dug in using Field Works. In C&C Tricorne, Field Works allow Infantry and Artillery units to ignore one hit from ranged combat (except when attacked by artillery) as well as giving the unit the Morale Effect of ignoring one flag (retreat) except again from artillery. In effect, Field Works force the attacker to either bombard or close and Melee Battle (close assault) to remove the dug in defenders.

When setting up this game I missed a crucial new rule; a French Regular Infantry unit is composed of five blocks vice the usual four for British, German, or Continental. Thus, the French units fought at a disadvantage in my game.

Continental-French view of Battle of Savannah at start

The French ended up carrying most of the fight this time. The draw of Command Cards for the Continental-French side ended up favoring the American right flank. Over the 15 rounds, I think something like nine Command Cards were for the right or a Line Command that was utilized in that section of the battlefield.

To win this battle, one needs to get nine Victory Banners. In addition to the usual banner awarded for destroying a unit, the Continental player also gains a banner for each unit exited off the British side of the board (relief to Savannah) or when occupying a Field Works at the start of their turn. The British gain a banner when there is no enemy in a Field Works at the beginning of their turn or when playing a Scout Command Card (representing the arrival of reinforcements). In this game the British never played a Scout card (indeed, one was never even drawn) and instead had to rely on destruction of enemy units and trying to eject any intruders in the Field Works.

The French attack on the right was a real slog and saw six complete units destroyed. As three of these were Regular Infantry I have to wonder if the fifth block could have saved these units! The Americans only lost one Light Cavalry unit under Pulaski. One American Light Cavalry and one French Light Infantry unit exited the board (two Victory Banners). Even with the artificially-weak French Regular Infantry the final score after 15 rounds was 10 Victory Banners for the Continental-French army (+7 for units destroyed – including the death of Leader Tawes, +2 for exited units, +1 for occupying a Field Works) versus seven Victory Banners for the British (+7 for units destroyed).

End of game. British right rolled up but at high cost to French.

Like many Commands & Colors games, the fickle hand of Fate played a major part in this battle. A French Grenadier Elite Infantry unit failed its Rally Check even with a +1 die advantage and Routed off the battlefield. Although the British had a 4:1 advantage in Light Artillery the draw of Command Cards saw very few actual bombardments take place. After a few rapid advances by the American cavalry on the left the Continental infantry in the center and left barely got moving and did little to contribute to the battle.

This game was my seventh play of C&C Tricorne since I got the base game in 2017. I am definitely becoming more familiar and comfortable with the game system and as a result it is playing much faster. At 15 rounds I think this was the longest C&C Tricorne scenario I have ever played but even so it still took just under 2 hours. I sometime hear hardcore grognards belittle the Commands & Colors-series as being “too simple” but I believe such criticism is misguided. Sure, the game mechanics are highly simplified but the game delivers a somewhat-realistic version of warfare with little rules overhead. Additionally, the table-presence of the game with the terrain tiles for a variable board set up and colorful blocks (all readily marked for easy reference) make it easy to play.

And it is fun!

Featured image “Siege of Savannah – Death of Kazimierz Pulanski” from pinterest

Battle of Kings Mountain – Setup. Continental Baseline is at top, British on bottom.

I refought this major Revolutionary War engagement on the 238th anniversary of the battle using Commands & Colors Tricorne: The French & More! expansion from Compass Games. This battle started out well for the Americans, with Provincials and Rifle units under Servier, Campbell, and Shelby (left of photo above) pushing in from the Continental right and forcing Ferguson back (left of British line as seen above). Meanwhile, Militia under McDowell and Winston (bottom right) advanced along with two other Militia units coming across Clark’s Ford (upper right). Servior reached the mountain first, gaining the Continentals a Temporary Victory Banner. However, Turn 6 proved to be devastating to the Continentals when the British used Line Volley to decimate American units. Even at long range, the British were able score hits against Militia under Williams and Provincials under Cleveland (both at top-center of photo above) scoring just a few hits but also forcing a Retreat off the board and thus scoring a Victory Banner. Combined with Militia failing to Rally and Routing off the board the British were able to hold on even as their defenses collapsed on their camps.

End of Turn 7 – British 6 Victory Banner vs Continental 2

One of the Special Rules in this scenario is “racing against time.” The British player can earn one Permanent Victory Banner for each Scout Command card he plays. This didn’t happen this game but it looks to be an interesting scoring mechanic that I want to see more of.

The best part of this game was making the History to Wargame connection. The RockyMountainNavy Boys saw the board and asked about the battle. This led to a nice discussion of the battle history. In the past year I have come to realize that I had pretty good knowledge of the northern campaigns and battles of the American Revolution but games like the “War in the South” scenario for Liberty or Death: The American Insurrection (found in C3i Magazine #30) or Supply Lines of the American Revolution: The Southern Strategy have taught me that I missed out on an understanding of the battles in the south which were often nasty, highly personal affairs.

On October 9, at dawn, thousands of French and Americans attacked the British positions and were cut down. It was the bloodiest hour in the Revolutionary War. Pulaski and Marion expressed strong disagreement with the plan proposed by D’estaing, but obeyed orders. As the 5 units attacked the British resistance stiffened. Still, Continental soldiers broke through the redoubt in at least two places near Spring Hill. As the Americans carried the wall of the redoubt, the flags were planted to show the soldiers the breach in the line. Suddenly, British Regulars, under the command of Col. John Maitland, advanced and turned back the combined French and Continental Army.

The American line at the redoubt began to crumble under the intense pressure of Maitland’s Regulars. Pulaski, seeing the line pull back, rode up and tried to rally the men as well when he was mortally wounded by cannister. American hero, Sgt. Jasper, was killed on the ramparts trying to save his unit’s battle flag. Polish patriot Casimir Pulaski was killed in a calvary charge. Black troops from Haiti in the French reserve came forward to cover the retreat of the shattered attackers. In an hour, a thousand casulaities resulted. During a truce, hundreds of French and American soldiers were buried in a mass grave. The city was held by the British until 1782 although guerrilla efforts by men like Col. Francis Marion, a survivor of the siege, continued.

Next week is also the anniversary of the Battle of Yorktown and there is a scenario “Yorktown (Assault on Redoubt #9 & #10) – 14 October 1781” also available. This was siege warfare unlike anything seen before in the American Revolution:

By October 14, the trenches were within 150 yards (140 m) of redoubts #9 and #10. Washington ordered that all guns within range begin blasting the redoubts in order to weaken them for an assault that evening. Washington would use the cover of a moonless night to lend the element of surprise to the enterprise. To reinforce the darkness, he added silence, ordering that no soldier should load his musket until reaching the fortifications- the advance would be made with only “cold steel.” Redoubt 10 was near the river and held only 70 men, while redoubt 9 was a quarter of a mile inland, and was held by 120 British and Germans. Both redoubts were heavily fortified with rows of abatis surrounding them along with muddy ditches which surrounded the redoubts at a distance of about 25 yards. Washington devised a plan in which the French would launch a diversionary attack on the Fusiliers redoubt, and then a half an hour later, the French would assault redoubt 9 and the Americans redoubt 10. Redoubt 9 would be assaulted by 400 French Regular soldiers under the command of the German Lieutenant Colonel Wilhelm von Zweibrücken and redoubt 10 would be assaulted by 400 light infantry troops under the command of Alexander Hamilton. There was briefly a dispute as to who should lead the attack on redoubt #10, Lafayette named his aide, the Chevalier de Gimat, to lead the attack, but Hamilton protested, saying that he was the senior officer. Washington concurred with Hamilton and gave him command of the attack.

I look forward to playing these scenarios and getting the French Army into battle!

These games, like Commands & Colors Tricorne,have helped open my eyes to the history of these battles. This learning from wargaming is a part of the hobby I enjoy best and am happy to pass onto the RockyMountainNavy Boys.

I am trying out Board Game Stats this month. Nothing fancy; just the basic module with no Cloud Sync or Deep Stats or the like. I am, after all, mostly a solo or family gamer. After using it for a month I am convinced I don’t need more because it pretty much proves I am a tame boardgamer.

The other stats are mildly interesting to me and, like all stats, some are a bit misleading. I see that I played 43% of the time with “Mr. Solo” who, honestly, is not a person but my second-player gaming alter ego. Twenty percent (20%) of the games were with both the RockyMountainNavy Boys and the rest were with various solo personalities or bots (as in the Mechanical Marquis from Root: The Riverfolk Expansion). Unsurprisingly, Saturday is the day when most games are played (Saturday Game Night is surely a factor) and all my games were at the RockyMountainNavy Home. On another screen (not included above) the app tells me I had a 57% win percentage this month.

There is one stat here that makes me sad, and that one is the fact I only got to play six games this whole month with the RockyMountainNavy Boys. Outside of our once-a-week dedicated Game Night this is only two other random plays. The small number is a real (sad) testimony to just how busy our schedules are with work and school. For the good of all of us I probably need to work on getting more short family games to the table.

The Battle of Eutaw Springs has two parts to the engagement. The first part is the Meeting Battle where the American army runs into the British foraging party. Historically, the “rooting party” was overrun but a few soldiers escaped and alerted the British camp. The main battle followed. The two wargames I used to refight Eutaw Springs took different approaches to the battle and the relevant events.

In today’s game the British could just not get anything going and the American dice were hot. The turning point was the death of a British Leader (+1 VP) followed by the Rout of three units. The Morale rules in Commands & Colors Tricorne are maybe the most important to consider. In this case, all three units were forced to retreat and then conduct a Morale Check. A Morale Check is a die roll using the number of dice equal to the remaining blocks in the unit. To pass the check the roll has to have at least one Flag rolled. There are a few modifiers but that’s essentially the rule. In today’s battle, two FULL STRENGTH units that were forced to retreat outright FAILED their Morale Check and Routed away! The end result was a run-away victory for the Americans.

Endgame – British routed away….

The second game pulled out was the American Revolution Tri Pack from GMT Games (2017). Although not listed in the subtitle (Guilford, Saratoga, Brandywine) this game actually has a fourth battle included; Eutaw Springs! This battle has two versions that can be played; a Historical Battle that starts after the events of the foraging party (around 10am in the morning) or a Campaign Game that begins at 7am before the foraging party is encountered. Depending on the result of the foraging party battle the British may be alerted or caught unawares. Having already played out the battle, I set up the Campaign Game to see what might happen differently. Alas, the battle of the foraging party resulted in a Retreat which meant the historical result, an alerted British camp, happened again.

After that though, nothing went historically for the British. Once again the American dice were hot with many Disruption results in combat. Disruption results force retreats but more importantly reduce the army Morale Track. The battle saw many British units Disrupted with few actually Eliminated. The Americans were able to continuously push the British back as they were unable to keep a solid line to stop the American advance. By noon (Turn 6) the battle was pretty much a foregone conclusion. Even with the late arrival of British reinforcements was unable to stem the tide. As with the historical situation, once the Americans got into the British camp there was some Looting (though less than historically) but it did slow down any pursuit of the British.

Disruption after Disruption….

As with my Fourth of July Gaming, it is always fun to play a wargame battle on the anniversary of the event. Doing so brings fresh insights into the battle and the events around it. It demonstrates the real teaching power of wargames which match fun with learning.

Featured image “Battle of Eutaw Springs” by Granger courtesy fineartamerica.com

Yarmuk (XTR Corp., 1997) was the second game in Command Magazine Issue #45 (Oct 1997). The game recreates an epic battle in 636AD between Byzantine and Moslem armies. Yarmukis a relatively simple game that decently captures its theme but suffers from unclear rules and lack of a “gimmick” mechanic to make it truly unique and memorable.

Spelling errors litter the rules of Yarmuk. Thankfully, the rules are short and fairly simple. In some ways Yarmuk is an early Command & Colors-style game with alternating formation activations, a very simple combat resolution system, and several possible special “events” playable each turn. After going through the rules and playing the game, these are the ones that stand out to me:

5.2.A.2. Parley Check. One in six chance of skipping a full day in the game (the battle is six days long). In my play through I rolled Parley on Day 1.

5.2.A.3. Sandstorm Check. One in six chance of a sandstorm for the day. Reduces combat effectiveness.

5.2.A.4. Duel of Champions. First day only. Good chrome that makes the game “feel” more thematic with little rules overhead.

5.3 The Sword of Allah. One of two “unique” game rules that reinforce theme. Twice each day, the Moslem player gets an extra Action Phase using Moslem cavalry. This is the only time Moslem cavalry can charge (9.8).

6.0 Zones of Control. Units must stop when entering an enemy ZoC. To leave an enemy ZoC is a morale check. Units starting the Combat Phase in an enemy ZoC MUST attack. Units retreating though the attacking units ZoC must make a morale check.

7.0 Stacking. What should be a simple rule is actually confused by the rules layout. Rule 7.1 Stacking Generally specifies that at the end of each phase only two units can be in a hex. However, in the second half of rule 7.2 Stacking Specifics (which is unfortunately found on the next page from the rule header) states that, “only the top units in a single hex may attack or be attacked in a single combat. The stacking order in a hex may be changed only by shifting an activated units during its movement phase….” I missed this part of the stacking rule in the first few days of my game and it totally changed the complexion of combat.

9.1 Combat Generally. Combat is a simple affair. The difference of attacking units to defending units yields a column used on the Combat Results Table (CRT). Or it should be, but again the rules as written get in the way:

“…undisrupted units…may attack. Any such unit starting its combat phase in an enemy ZOC must attack.” (Units in enemy ZOC must attack, or may they?)

“A single unit may attack up to six adjacent defending units.” (One unit, six attacks?)

“Up to six units may attack a single hex.” (Surrounded unit)

“Each attacking unit may participate in only one combat per combat phase.” (So one unit – one attack, not up to six attacks as above?)

“A single defending unit may be attacked only once per combat phase….” (What about a single defending unit with two enemy units in its ZoC? Attack by only one? Or both? Per above both must, or may?)

I think the intent of the rules is that each unit can only attack (or be attacked) once per combat phase. I think this is the rule, but as written it is difficult to determine what the rules actually say.

9.3 Retreat. Requires very careful reading. A retreating unit that is forced to retreat into a ZoC of a non-attacking unit is fine, but if it retreats into the ZoC of the attacking unit it must make a morale check and, if it fails, disrupts of routs and must continue to retreat until reaches a hex not within ANY enemy ZoC.

10.0 Supreme Effort. The second unique game mechanic. Each formation has a Supreme Effort (SE) chit that can be played for extra combat power. Well, each formation should have a chit except for a printing error on the counters which has the back side of one formations SE chit on a combat unit. To offset the power of SE, using SE can lead to backlash (10.3 SE Backlash) which is a negative combat effect and risks morale.

At first glance, Yarmuk appears to be a game with simple rules and just enough theme. The sad reality is that confusing rules get in the way of enjoying the thematic elements. Furthermore, Yarmuk has a very Command & Colors feel to it. I cannot find a Yarmukscenario for C&C so maybe making one is worth it. Doing so is more likely to result in a positive game experience because trying to sort through the Command Magazine/XTR Corp. version of Yarmuk is probably more effort than it’s worth.

Featured image courtesy boardgamegeek.com. By the way, the setup shown is wrong because, according to 3.0 Setup, “Each leader must be stacked with any unit under his command.” None of the leaders visible are stacked with a unit but in a separate hex. Appears I’m not the only one confused by the rules….

Often times, wargamers get caught up in the material of war. Comparisons of which tank or airplane or ship is better dominate the hobby. Wargames that are more simulationist reinforce this condition. The impact of war on the human condition is overlooked or even outright ignored. In the RockyMountainNavy weekly game night, the impact of morale was brought front and center and forced all of us to think about it deeply. To my surprise, the lesson came from the Panzer series from GMT Games; a game that I consider detail-oriented and a good game for comparing tanks. When the game was finished, the lessons learned had little to do with which tank was better and everything to do with the role of morale in combat.

The Youngest RMN Boy is getting into the machines of war. After diving deep into the aircraft of World War II and battleships of World War I he has turned his attention to armored vehicles of World War II. Last week, I introduced Panzerfrom GMT Games to the boys. This week he hounded me for a bigger, better battle.

Courtesy Opsrey

Youngest RMN Boy recently purchased a copy of Osprey Publishing’s M26/M46 Pershing Tank 1943-53at a used book store. He read with fascination the accounts of battle between Pershings and German tanks at the end of World War II. After playing Panzerhe wanted to see for himself how the match-up could of gone. I created a home brew scenario where a German Elite platoon of 4x Tiger II tanks, supported by a Jadgtiger tank destroyer, had a meeting engagement with a US Veteran platoon of 5x M26 Pershing supported by a platoon of 3x M36 Jackson tank destroyers with a single ‘Easy 8’ Sherman. Although the Germans were outnumbered almost 2:1, their better morale and training actually gave them a slight edge in scenario points.

In order to expedite the game, I once again played as umpire. Youngest RMN took the Germans while Middle RMN led the Americans. Both boys are still learning tactics, so I was not surprised they both split their forces on set up. Once the shooting started, something very incredible happened.

In Panzer, the experience/morale level of the unit impacts several game mechanics. On Initiative Rolls, units that are Elite gain a +40 while Veterans gain only +20. The level also determines Command Range – the distance units can be apart and still share a common order – with Elite having a 2-hex range and Veteran only 1-hex. In AP Fire, the superior training of Elite units gains a greater positive shift in combat (translating to better chance of hit) as compared to Veteran units. Taken together, Youngest RMN Boys’s Elite Panzers were not only superior in firepower and protection, but with their better training should have gained the initiative (control of the battle) more often. The American tanks had the advantage of numbers and mobility (both in terms of raw speed as well as turret slew rates).

Tiger IIs in France (courtesy tanks-encyclopedia.com)

The battle actually devolved into two separate skirmishes. In the north, two Tiger II faced off against the 5x Pershings. In the south, two Tiger II and the Jagdtiger took on the 3x M36 and Easy 8.

First blood was drawn in the north where the Tiger II’s firing at ranges between 1600-2000m “brewed up” two M26’s. Even using better ammunition, the M26s were impotent against the German armor protection.

Another game mechanic in Panzer where morale/experience is represented is Bail Out. When tanks are hit, even with a non-penetrating/non-damaging shot, the crew must roll for Bail Out. In the case of a non-prentrating/no-damage AP hit, the crew will Bail Out on a percentile die roll of 10 or less. Elite units gain a +5 modifier, literally meaning there is only a 5% chance of an Elite unit bailing out.

At the end of the scenario, four M26 Pershings were knocked out along with two M36’s. The Jagdtiger and a single Tiger II were immobilized by Track Damage. But the most astounding result was that in three of the the five German tanks the crew bailed out from non-penetrating/non-damaging hits. Statistically speaking, this was an astounding outcome.

That is perhaps the greatest lesson of Panzer; the greatest tank with the best guns and armor does not always translate into battlefield success.

I fear that in this age of push-button warfare and video games that the human factor in combat is ignored or forgotten. This is also why I play games, and wargames, with the RockyMountainNavy Boys. I want them to know that war is not machine versus machine but human. I did not expect GMT Games and their wargame Panzerto be this vehicle of learning, but I am very happy that it is.